!"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'"''"&:;:""''""9"&''5,<)'"# !"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'"''"&:;:""''""9"&''5,<)'"&

the rewards

of service eonardo da vinci’s 18 years in ‘divine grace’ that – with the artist seeking to surpass were the making of him.1 It was probably in 1482 that the beauties of nature – could take painting into the he journeyed from the mercantile republic of Florence realm of the otherworldly. Lto this, the wealthiest and most populous of Italy’s In return for Ludovico’s protection, this marvellous, leonardo dynastic city states, and he soon entered the orbit of its modern painter would be celebrated as ‘his’, the human magnificent ruler, Ludovico Maria Sforza (1452–1508; emblem of the Sforza court. The rhetoric surrounding nicknamed il Moro – ‘the Moor’ – probably because his employment ensured that Leonardo’s highly visible of his swarthy features: see cat. 2). And when, in about gifts were taken as the mirror of his patron’s more da vinci 1489–90, Ludovico began paying Leonardo a salary, the abstract talents as a ruler. And, particularly in the , prince was granting the painter the time and space to Leonardo’s painting of a world made perfect by analysis, eΩect a quite extraordinary metamorphosis of the art of discipline and imagination could be understood as corre- painting. Leonardo’s three surviving Milanese portraits sponding to the much promoted notion of and (cats 5, 10, 17), not least his likeness of il Moro’s mistress, as the perfected ruler of an ideal state. Onlookers may , chronicle a stylistic journey that was have been aware of the ways in which the life stories of to revolutionise the genre.2 His two versions of the Virgin Ludovico and Leonardo chimed, making it clear that their of the Rocks (cats 31, 32) were both painted for an elite achievements were due to their outstanding talents, but Milanese confraternity, packed with Ludovico’s courtiers. also the responsible ways in which they had honed these the duke Superficially they look alike – their compositions are gifts. Patron and painter were exactly of an age and their more or less the same – but in their details and hence roads to glory had been unconventional. Ludovico became their overall ambition they are revealed as profoundly Duke of Milan only in 1494, but (with the title Duke of diΩerent from one another. These are disparities that Bari) had ruled the city as regent for his young nephew, of milan reflect Leonardo’s significant change of direction in the Gian Galeazzo, from 1481. However, as the fourth son years after 1490. of Duke Francesco Sforza, he had been brought up In 1550 GiorgioVasari, the first great historian of art, with no real expectations of power. Leonardo was born placed Leonardo in the vanguard of what he dubbed the with even fewer prospects, the illegitimate child of LU K E SYS ON modern manner, notable for his ‘force and boldness of a peasant girl and a middle-class notary, tucked away design, the subtlest counterfeiting of all the minutiae of in the Florentine countryside until his late teens, but Nature exactly as they are, with good rule, better order, becoming a painter whose gifts were so manifest and correct proportion, perfect design and divine grace’.3 manifold as to guarantee his success. A publicly emblazoned Leonardo was being credited with the stylistic leap partnership between patron and painter could make their that resulted in what many art historians call the High contemporaries contemplate the question – of immense Renaissance. This changed sense not just of what pictures rhetorical importance to both men – of where talent might look like, but of their whole purpose and scope, is comes to reside, of the diΩerence between a great man usually located in Florence during the years Leonardo and the rest. spent there immediately after 1500. But of all Leonardo’s The connections that can be traced between Leonardo’s works Vasari devotes most attention to the Last Supper artistic trajectory and Ludovico’s rhetoric of rule should (fig. 105), a work of almost uncanny perfection (despite emphatically not, however, be seen as matters of mere cause its rapid decay), executed in Milan in about 1492–7/8. and eΩect. Unlike many of his courtier contemporaries, Quite properly, Vasari gives Ludovico Sforza a leading Leonardo was too creative and too independent to turn role in the narrative of its execution. For it was actually himself into a servile panegyrist. And Ludovico was wise with this picture, and as Ludovico’s court painter, that enough not to attempt the complete annexation of his Leonardo had first attained that pioneering combination painter’s immense creativity. Leonardo is often treated as of detailed naturalism, a feature already familiar from peerless, unconnected with the world around him, locked the work of Netherlandish painters and their Italian away in the tower of his own genius. But his artistic imitators, with something that is deemed new: the philosophy evolved against a background of collectively

13 !"#$!%%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&9989"&&4+=(&>> !"#$!%%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&9989"&&4+=(&>%

figs 44, 45 Infrared reflectography details of the London (cat. 32)

composition – an interest of increasing importance to Leonardo, and one even more evident in the better-preserved version of the painting now in the . The National Gallery Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 32) might seem to be a simple reprise or variation of the painting, but research undertaken in 2005 has made it clear that its production was a more convoluted process than its appearance suggests. Surprisingly, the panel was begun with a wholly unrelated composition which appears to be closely connected to compositional sketches for the Adoration of the Christ Child at Windsor and in New York (fig. 42, cats 30 and 40). The principal elements of the kneeling Virgin of that initial composition are revealed by infrared reflectography. Drawn with the brush in a liquid medium, her head and left hand are based on some sort of mechanical transfer from partial cartoons, while for a variety of purposes. The pose of the hand (fig. 44) dispute concerning the Virgin of the Rocks, shortly post-dating the drawing of her drapery and right hand is much more appears in the Last Supper (fig. 46), as well as in Portrait of December 1490, providing further confirmation of the free and improvised, the latter in particular still sketchy Cecilia Gallerani (cat. 10) and the Grifi Altarpiece (fig. 43) – starting date of the London work – and thereby clarifying 46 and unresolved (fig. 44). a documented work by Boltra≈o and Marco d’Oggiono its relationship to the painting in the Louvre. Interestingly, fig. 42 The relationship of this now hidden composition to – both of which can be dated to the mid-1490s.47 The the preliminary sketch in the Royal Collection, which is Diagram of hidden composition in other works by Leonardo is of fundamental importance the London Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 32) underdrawn Virgin’s head (fig. 45) is extremely similar closest to the initial composition of the National Gallery for our understanding of the working practices of his to a reversed image of the head of a youth (cat. 76) used picture, also contains architectural elements that are closely studio. The designs of the Virgin’s head and left hand for Saint Philip in the Last Supper, probably planned at related to features that appear within the unfinished Saint 44 a lost original by Leonardo. Before the composition was appear in other works, a clear indication of the existence about the same time as the London Virgin of the Rocks.48 The Jerome; this reinforces the evidence provided by its walnut laid out on the panel Leonardo probably made similar of partial cartoons, sometimes rescaled, for these features, dating of these various works, from about 1489 to 1493, is support for dating this picture to Leonardo’s Milan years, drawings for the heads of all the protagonists, as he did as well of as the reuse and recycling of such elements also consistent with the documents of the initial contract started most probably in the very late .49 for Saint John. Both provide early examples of Leonardo’s lifelong habit of working out detailed elements within larger compositions through the targeted use of highly finished drawings, studies that may even have been made after painting had begun, a practice which is most famously evident in the next decade during the execution of the Last Supper.45 The Louvre Virgin of the Rocks (cat. 31) is a significant advance on Leonardo’s previous work (coming just after the Adoration). For the first time we have a multi-figure composition that is fully completed, set within a remarkably complex landscape. Even in its compromised condition the picture demonstrates a remarkable level of execution: surviving details of hair, draperies and foliage display a sustained degree of finish, equal to any of his portraits. More important, each detail is carefully calibrated within fig. 43 a larger scheme of relationships of colour, tone and illumi- fig. 46 cat. 10 (detail) giovanni antonio boltraffio nation, which are coordinated across the whole of the and marco d’oggiono The Last Supper (detail of fig. 100 showing The Grifi Altarpiece (detail of fig. 98), about 1497 Saint Philip’s hands), 1492–7/8

66 i n p u r s u i t of p e r f e c t ion 67 !"#$%&&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'%''%&:;:%%''%<9%;''5,=)'%>! !"#$%&&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(678.9()*+,-.*'%''%&:;:%%''%<9%;''5,=)'%>%

14 15 leonardo da vinci (1452–1519) leonardo da vinci Study of a bear’s head Studies of a dog’s paw about 1485 about 1485

Metalpoint on prepared paper Metalpoint on prepared paper 7 × 7 cm 14.1 × 10.7 cm Private collection, New York The National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh. Purchased by the Private Treaty Sale with the aid of The Art Fund 1991 (d 5189r)

Within the oeuvre of an artist as keenly interested in l i t e r at u r e nature as Leonardo, his studies of animals assume a Cat. 14: Popham 1937, p. 87; Berenson particular value. In addition to his well-known interest 1938, vol. 2, p. 115, no. 1044c; Popham 1946, pp. 55, no. 78a, 125; Ames-Lewis in horses, he made numerous drawings of other and Wright in Nottingham and London animals, both real and fantastical. 1983, p. 74, cat. 8; Kemp in London 1989, p. 96, cat. 37; Pedretti 1992, These two sheets contain studies made from life cat. 14 p. 188; Bambach in New York 2003, and share a common provenance from the collections pp. 359–61. cat. 43; Wolk-Simon in of Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830) and Captain and New York 2004, p. 89; Norman R. Colville (1893–1974).1 Both are executed Kemp and Barone 2010, p. 106, no. 72. in the same fine metalpoint technique on light pink Cat. 15: Popham 1937, p. 87; Berenson or buΩ prepared paper and date from a period in which 1938, vol. 2, p. 115 n. 1044b; Popham Leonardo was focusing intensely on the animal world. 1946, pp. 55, 125–6, no. 79a/b; Kemp in London 1989, p. 98, cat. 39; Weston An analogous work to the Edinburgh study, dated cat. 10 (detail) Lewis in Edinburgh, New York and a few years earlier, is that of the short-haired dog in Houston 1999, pp. 14–15, cat. 1; the Studies of a dog and cat (, London, and partially fantastical morphology Gallerani’s Kemp and Barone 2010, p. 46, no. 4. 1895,0915.477). The two dogs probably belong to a ermine should be seen not as a representation of a real diΩerent breed, as seen from the ruΩled and individual animal but as a symbolic presence or allegorical figure.4 curled locks of fur on the legs and between the toes The combination of fantasy and reality revealed in and claws in the Scottish drawing. the invention of the ermine does not contradict Leonardo evinces a similar naturalistic accuracy in Leonardo’s conception of the natural, which, as stated his two drawings of bears – a beautiful head (private in the Treatise on Painting, can include constructing collection) and the Studies for a walking bear and his paw imaginary or unknown creatures by assembling their (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1975.1.369), parts from diΩerent animals.5 which share similar technique and preparation. Here the Thus both sheets can be seen as important prece- artist demonstrates his profound interest in the beast, dents rather than true preparatory studies for the probably an animal in captivity, with a superb economy fascinating creature in the Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani. The of means in the fine, animated metalpoint hatching.2 dog’s paws, minutely observed from diΩerent angles, These drawings have been variously dated between anticipate those of the wriggling ermine. Similarly, the end of the 1470s and the mid-1490s.3 Though some the ermine’s powerful head may be associated with the scholars prefer to situate these studies in Florence, they studies of the bear’s, in the structure of the cranium are better understood stylistically – and hence chrono- and shape of its features: small round eyes, cylindrical logically – alongside the revolutionary Portrait of Cecilia muzzle and pointed nose. Furthermore, the present Gallerani (cat. 10). Leonardo’s acute observation of studies are characterised by their energised luminosity, animal anatomy and physiognomy as expressed here with touches of metalpoint evoking the play of light looks ahead to the pictorial invention of the ermine in and shade reminiscent of that on the dense fur of that portrait – though with its exaggerated dimensions the animal cradled in Cecilia Gallerani’s arms. ag

n ot e s 1490s (Clark and Pedretti 1968–9, period. The fact that they are on the 1 A common French provenance has vol. 1, p. 52; Clayton in London 1996–7, same paper as preparatory studies for the also been suggested: see Weston-Lewis p. 48; Clayton 2001, pp. 50–1) but Adoration of the Magi (fig. 34) and that this in Edinburgh, New York and Houston probably from the mid-1480s (I thank pink prepared paper was not as wide- 1999–2000, p. 14. Martin Clayton for this observation). spread in Milan as blue prepared paper, 2 The Studies of a dog’s paw were made from 3 Though frequently dated in the early does not appear to be su≈cient cat. 15 (recto) cat. 15 (verso) life from a domesticated dog – and 1490s, these drawings were correctly grounds for excluding them from the not a wolf or bear, as has been argued retro-dated to the previous decade Milanese period. Milanese sheets such as (Weston-Lewis in Edinburgh, New York (Popham 1946, p. 55; Weston Lewis in cats 3, 13 and the Studies of a horse (fig. 19) and Houston 1999–2000, p. 14; Barone Edinburgh, New York and Houston are similarly coloured and prepared. and Kemp 2010, p. 46). They have also 1999–2000, pp. 14–15; Bambach in 4 On the allegorical and symbolic been associated with other studies of New York 2003, p. 357–61; Barone and associations of the ermine see cat. 10. dissected bear paws (Windsor rl Kemp 2011, p. 46), although too rigidly 5 bn 2038 fol. 29r; Urb. fol. 135r; 12372–5) usually dated to the early linked to the end of the Florentine r 585, mcm 554; k/w 573.

120 !"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(!678.9()*+,-.*':'':";&;::''<=9=>''5,?)'!=! !"#$!%&'()*+,-.*'/012('345(!678.9()*+,-.*':'':";&;::''<=9=>''5,?)'!=>

fig. 100 leonardo da vinci The Last Supper, 1492–7/8 Tempera and oil on plaster, 460 × 880 cm Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan

252 !"#$%#%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'!567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&#=8=:&&4+>(&%## !"#$%#%&'()*+,-)&./01'&234'!567-8'()*+,-)&9&&9:;<;99&&#=8=:&&4+>(&%#9

91 leonardo da vinci (1452–1519) Christ as Salvator Mundi about 1499 onwards

Oil on walnut 65.5 × 45.1 cm Private collection

It has always seemed likely that Leonardo painted a picture of Christ as the Saviour of the World.1 In 1650 the celebrated printmaker Wenceslaus Hollar signed an etching of Christ raising his right hand in blessing, holding a transparent orb in his left, with a nimbus of light behind his head; the image was taken, he states, from a painting by Leonardo (fig. 111).2 Though Hollar was generally well-informed, this would not be enough on its own to prove that an autograph picture by Leonardo had once existed. By the seventeenth century fig. 111 any number of paintings by his pupils and associates wenceslaus hollar (1607–1677) were firmly attributed to Leonardo himself and there After Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi, 1650 was no shortage of pupils’ pictures depicting the Etching, first state, 26.4 × 19.0 cm Salvator Mundi, all clearly related to one another, all The Royal Collection (rl 801855) unmistakably Leonardesque. In 1978 and 1982 one of these many versions was promoted as Leonardo’s stole and on the border of his vestment are very similar l i t e r at u r e lost ‘original’, partly because of its similarities to the indeed, a particularly important consideration given Borenius 1913, p. 123; Suida 1929, etching, a suggestion that has rightly been rejected.3 that this ornament is the aspect most subject to change p. 140; Clark 1935, vol. 1, p. 80; Suida in Los Angeles 1949, pp. 85–6; Hollar might very well have been copying a copy. in the diΩerent surviving versions. There can be no Heydenreich 1964, p. 109; Snow-Smith There is other evidence, however, that Leonardo doubt that this is the picture copied by Hollar. 1982, pp. 11, 12, fig. 7. explored this or a related subject. As early as the mid- In fact this version of the Salvator Mundi is not a 1480s he drew a ‘head of Christ’, in pen and ink, which new discovery. It has been known since the beginning appears in the list of his works preserved in the Codex of the twentieth century but never seriously studied Atlanticus (see p. 25). And in the early sixteenth and certainly not recognised as Leonardo’s own work. century he discussed painting an adolescent Christ The picture was acquired in 1900 by Sir Francis Cook for Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua.4 Most for his collection at Doughty House in Richmond, importantly, there survive two red chalk drawings of Surrey, through or from his long-standing adviser, Sir draperies, obviously related to the composition etched J.C. Robinson. It has not yet been discovered where by Hollar and the many workshop copies (cats 89, 90). Robinson obtained it. In 1913 Tancred Borenius cata- But even these do not constitute proof that Leonardo logued it as a ‘free copy after Boltra≈o’, twice removed painted a Salvator Mundi, and it has sometimes been therefore from Leonardo. In 1958 it was sold from the argued that these drawings might have formed the basis Cook collection, still as a copy after Boltra≈o. The low for one or more finished designs – perhaps cartoons – esteem in which it was held is easy to explain: by the that he made expressly to be copied by pupils but time it came into Francis Cook’s possession it had been with no primary version by the master himself. Other very considerably overpainted. Christ’s blessing hand scholars have imagined, more straightforwardly, that was the least altered area but his head had been almost Leonardo’s own painting disappeared long ago. entirely reinvented. And that after 1958 it was known The re-emergence of this picture, cleaned and only from the poor black-and-white photograph restored to reveal an autograph work by Leonardo, reproduced in Borenius’s catalogue only compounded therefore comes as an extraordinary surprise. Though the problem. Hollar’s Christ is very slightly stouter and broader, the The reasons for such abundant overpaint are also two images coincide almost exactly. The draperies are clear. Though both Christ’s hands are well preserved, just a little simplified and there is no glow of light elsewhere the picture has suΩered. Sometime in the around Christ’s head. Otherwise the newly discovered past the panel split in two, causing paint losses along painting has the same snaking locks of hair, expression- the length of the crack. It has also been aggressively less face and uncannily direct gaze, and the same over-cleaned, with some abrasion of the whole picture swathe of monumental drapery across his shoulder. surface and especially in the face and hair of Christ, And the knot-pattern ornament on Christ’s crossed where Leonardo’s sequence of delicate paint layers

300